Colorado Adds Open-Source Exemption to Age-Verification Bill(fosstodon.org)
90 pointsby terminalbraid7 hours ago9 comments
  • iamnothere5 hours ago
    It’s still not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled. “You must add this sentence to the foreword of all books you write, unless you use the CC0 license” would still be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech even though it exempts authors who use a free license.

    Given the current broad assault on civil liberties, though, I’ll take any small victories we can get.

    • JumpCrisscross3 hours ago
      > not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled

      How is this different from any disclosure, signage or notice requirement?

    • calvinmorrison2 hours ago
      compelled speech, freedom of speech, association, etc all died with Goldwater. It's over bubba, the government is just thinking up new ways to use it.
  • userbinator4 hours ago
    Open, closed, doesn't matter. Just say no.
  • throwaway858254 hours ago
    Meta is behind this.
  • shrubble3 hours ago
    It is not trustworthy full stop. A simple amendment passed the next year can change it.
  • ranger_danger3 hours ago
    "Does not apply to operating systems under terms that permit a recipient to ... modify the software without restriction"

    That sounds like it doesn't even apply to most open-source licenses, since they usually do have some restrictions, like not being able to change the license without permission of all authors, or removing authors' credits, plus you have to display the license to the user etc., IANAL but perhaps those could all be interpreted as "restrictions" that make it not eligible for exemption.

    • aiiane3 hours ago
      Also not a lawyer, but from what I understand typically open source license restrictions are on redistribution - there's nothing preventing you from modifying something for personal use in more or less whatever way you want.
  • 6 hours ago
    undefined
  • homo__sapiens3 hours ago
    Zuck is a fake geek
  • kelseyfrog3 hours ago
    Propose a workable alternative for parents and then we'll talk.
    • jemmyw3 hours ago
      Engage with your kids. Don't give them personal devices until they're a bit older. Monitor their usage properly with your own senses, not with "parental controls". Talk to them about what they do.

      If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway.

      • JumpCrisscross3 hours ago
        > If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway

        School bans have been effective because the entire friend group is taken off at once. That network effect is important. We need a real solution for keeping kids off social media—there is too much popular will for this not to happen. The debate is realistically around how.

      • kelseyfrog3 hours ago
        That's the option we have now and it's not working. Please suggest and alternative that works.
        • geoffmanning3 hours ago
          Maybe suck less at being a parent? Just throwing it out there. You actually need to do the work.
          • kelseyfrog3 hours ago
            I'm talking about parents in aggregate. It's not working. Please suggest something that works en mass.
            • nextaccountican hour ago
              I think it's the opposite, you need to demonstrate that this law would work
              • kelseyfrog18 minutes ago
                How effective do you find that strategy to be?
            • mmastrac3 hours ago
              Maybe we should require a license to have kids if it's not working as it is.
              • kelseyfrog3 hours ago
                I can't believe a license for kids is less infringing on rights than age verification. Please be serious.
            • jimbooonooo3 hours ago
              You are the person requesting others comply (on behalf of the aggregate) the onus is on you to provide this solution. The solution that was provided, specifically engaged parenting, is the appropriate response.
              • kelseyfrog3 hours ago
                Nope, because it will be passed unless you come to the negotiating table in good faith. The truth is that all this resistance mean you don't get a seat at the table, will be left out of discussions and your worst fears will come to pass because you took a hard-line position.

                Good luck. People who aren't willing to collaborate don't get what they want.

    • kmeisthaxan hour ago
      The workable alternative is no bill. These age surveillance bills are designed specifically to indemnify service providers (and, specifically, Facebook) when they inevitably try to harm your child, on the basis of "well the phone OS said he's over 18 so we can do whatever we want to him".
    • mindslight3 hours ago
      Imagine: Websites over a certain number of users must publish content-suitability tags. Preinstalled operating systems over a certain marketshare must include software that can filter on said content-suitability tags, which can be enabled during the initial setup process. When parental controls are enabled, websites without tags "fail closed" and don't display. The open web continues to exist, and the long tails of sites, operating systems, and devices stay completely unaffected.

      The bill under discussion is being pushed by Facebook purely to absolve themselves of liability. The information flow is completely backwards. Its design actually removes control from parents (websites are responsible for making the decision, so whether a given site is suitable for your kid is made by corporate attorneys), and puts assumed liability on parents (eg "you're negligent for letting your kid access a browser that doesn't broadcast their age").

      (I'm a parent but thankfully not yet at the stage where I have to navigate this issue)

    • 08627843789an hour ago
      [dead]
  • zzo38computer3 hours ago
    I think a open-source exemption would be acceptable (if done properly; another comment mentions a possible problem), even though I would think it would be preferable to not have such age-verification bills at all. At least, adding the exemption would be second best, which would be better than having the age-verification bills without a open-source exemption.

    (As another comment says, it is still not good, but at least it is something.)

    • Bilal_io3 hours ago
      This is the "lesser evil" trick politicians use to silence the opposition.